Blue-collar whites put him over the top. Here’s why it won’t happen again.

On the Sunday evening before Election Day, as part of his eleventh-hour barnstorming tour, Donald Trump touched down on some of the most famously contentious political turf in the country. Macomb County—the big, overwhelmingly white, working-class suburb of Detroit—is currently embroiled in a lawsuit for blocking the construction of a mosque. It’s also home to the original “Reagan Democrat,” that once-prosperous union voter who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1980s and upended the political map. The perfect place, in other words, for Trump to make a last-ditch appeal for support.

Unlike white voters down South, working-class voters across the Rust Belt ranged all over the electoral landscape after Reagan. Macomb backed Bill Clinton in the 1990s and voted twice for Barack Obama. But Hillary Clinton took Macomb’s support largely for granted, leaving working-class whites in the county—which lost more than half of its manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010—an easy target for Trump.

Trump was running late for his rally, but after Ted Nugent played for the 8,000 white voters in the Sterling Heights Amphitheater, they entertained themselves with chants of “CNN sucks!” and “Lock her up!” When the man himself arrived, he issued what would soon become a famous prophecy, the political equivalent of Babe Ruth’s home-run point or Joe Namath’s “guarantee” of a Super Bowl victory. The polls were either wrong or rigged, Trump thundered. “We’re going to go on Tuesday, and we’re going to win like they’ve never seen,” he vowed. “This is going to be Brexit-plus.”

When that expert-defying prediction came true, it looked like the Reagan Democrats had once again transformed the political map. Nationwide, Trump won working-class whites by a margin of more than two to one, outpacing Reagan’s historic highs in 1984. Across the Rust Belt, longtime Democratic strongholds flipped red. In Ohio, Trump won the blue-collar bastion of Trumbull County by six points, converting voters who had supported Obama by 22 points in 2012. In Pennsylvania, Trump narrowly lost working-class Lackawanna County, where Hillary Clinton’s father was born—but still pocketed 13,000 more votes than Mitt Romney did. And in Macomb itself, Trump won by double digits, capturing 33,000 more voters than Romney—nearly three times his razor-thin margin of victory statewide. Riding the blue-collar wave, Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—and his Electoral College margin of victory—by a total of just 110,000 votes.

The implication seemed clear: The election had been decided by working-class whites. It was “the revenge of the deplorables,” Bloomberg View proclaimed. Shocked Democrats immediately descended into finger pointing. Some blamed Clinton, a Washington insider running in an election fueled by populist anger. “The Democratic establishment is finished,” wrote Slate’s Jim Newell. “What a joke.” Others called on the party to rethink its entire strategy. Within days, The Washington Post reported, Sanders and other liberal activists were pushing to transform the Democratic Party into “an advocate for working-class voters.” Sanders supporters pointed to his victories over Clinton in Michigan and Wisconsin—Trump-style upsets fueled by heavy white majorities—as evidence that the party needed a whole new focus on blue-collar voters screwed by free trade and Wall Street.

There’s no question that without the record support of working-class whites, Trump would not have eked out his narrow wins in the Rust Belt—or in the Electoral College. But the truth is, 2016 did not mark a fundamental shift in the American electorate—and revamping the Democratic Party’s entire political strategy would be an enormous mistake. “This was an extreme election,” says William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. “All the stars and moon were aligned the same way for the Republicans.” In fact, a closer look at what happened in Macomb County and elsewhere in the Rust Belt reveals that 2016 may well represent what demographer Ruy Teixeira calls “the last stand of America’s white working class”—the final time that blue-collar whites will determine a national election.

It’s all in the numbers. Since 1980, working-class whites have seen their share of the electorate plunge by about 30 percent—and it will continue to decline another two to three points every four years. Meanwhile, the “rising majority” that favors Democrats—single and professional women, people of color, and millennials—will continue to grow. Overall, the minority share of the electorate, which stood at just 23 percent in 2000, will soar to 40 percent by 2032. Over the past four years alone, the clout of Asian American and Latino voters has jumped by more than 16 percent.

Even with Clinton’s shortcomings, Democrats fared well in states with the fastest-changing demographics. Clinton won Virginia and Colorado handily, and Nevada more narrowly. She also cut into the GOP’s victory margins from 2012 in Arizona, Texas, and Georgia. But in North Carolina and Florida—two battleground states expected to trend blue in the future—Democrats fell short of expectations. “Unfortunately for Democrats, not every state looks like Virginia or Colorado,” says Kyle Kondik, who analyzes elections for the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

The trend is so strong that no level of turnout among working-class whites will stem the demographic tide. “The racial composition of the electorate will continue to shift dramatically over the next four elections,” says Teixeira, co-author of The Emerging Democratic Majority. “Even with the astronomically high support for Trump among the white working class and the relatively weak minority support for Clinton, projected demographic shifts will still produce a very different outcome in 2020.” Even if blue-collar strongholds like Macomb County swing redder next time, the GOP will still come up short.

The turnout in November suggests even worse news for Republicans. Despite the image of a “Trump surge,” the white share of the electorate was the lowest in history, at just 69 percent. Trump won evangelical voters by a record-smashing 65 points, and he even won college-educated whites—but by 10 points less than Romney. The real problem for Democrats wasn’t that whites showed up on Election Day—it’s that they broke so strongly for Trump, while many minority voters stayed home. In Michigan’s Genesee County, which includes majority-black Flint, Clinton narrowly won—but garnered 26,000 fewer votes than Obama did in 2012.

Such numbers suggest that working-class whites don’t hold the key to future victories for Republicans, let alone Democrats. To forge a winning coalition going forward, the GOP will need to do everything it can to buttress its support among white professionals and evangelicals—by overturning Roe v. Wade, for instance, and passing tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans will also intensify efforts to suppress minority turnout by passing voting restrictions at the state level. “Sooner or later, Republicans are going to reach out to minority groups,” says Frey. “But Trump’s victory may hold them back, and make them think they can keep riding the white vote for longer.”

That thinking will likely be short-lived. The GOP, says Teixeira, is “clearly riding on demographic borrowed time.” In the long run, Trump’s coalition of the aggrieved may have as little staying power as the agrarian populists of the 1880s, whose rural base was ultimately overwhelmed by urbanization. Ironically, if Republicans continue to ignore America’s new majority—women, young voters, and people of color—their only sure path to the White House will be the one Trump denounced: rigging the election.

Parrhesia

The two all-time most popular posts of Transudationism

A modern-day classic

All life is a form of light, and the cosmos is a holonic Holy Hologram.

Immanence ≋ Transcendence

Transudationism: mankinds' cosmic ideology.

SIC ITUR AD ASTRA!

Ascensional Transudation

Cosmic Evolution

All history is the history of the evolutionary transubstantiation of matter to Spirit via biological-life processes of Blood and Reason.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's concluding thoughts from his 1978 Harvard address, A World Split Apart

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's concluding thoughts from his famous 1978 Harvard address,"A World Split Apart":

It would be retrogression to attach oneself today to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Social dogmatism leaves us completely helpless in front of the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but - upward.

In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Neoconservatives used 9/11 to launch their plan for US world hegemony. Their plan fit with the interests of America’s ruling oligarchies. Wars are good for the profits of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us in vain a half century ago. American hegemony is good for the oil industry’s control over resources and resource flows. The transformation of the Middle East into a vast American puppet state serves well the Israel Lobby’s Zionist aspirations for Israeli territorial expansion.

Search This Blog

About Me

MIdwest Book Review:

"The seed of the universe is the big bang, says Kyle McDermott in 'The Declaration of White Independence: The Founding Documents of Transudationism'. An explanation of this view which holds that all of current humanity and life on Earth today was intentionally set in motion all those billions of years ago, 'The Declaration of White Independence' probes matters of cosmological significance with straightforward candor and accessibility. Featuring intriguing concepts and ideas, 'The Declaration of White Independence' is highly recommended for metaphysical studies shelves."

The Music of Life: Biology Beyond Genes

and speaking of cosmic symphonies, Julianne Hough

We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.